Don't Decide In Secret

January 09, 2004

The legislature works in mysterious ways -- too mysterious.

Consideration of one of the most important issues of recent times -- the impeachment of Gov. John G. Rowland -- began in earnest Thursday when House Democrats met behind closed doors to discuss whether to initiate an inquiry.

If there is to be an inquiry, the move will originate in the House, and that chamber is controlled by Democrats, as is the Senate. If there is not to be an inquiry, Democrats will decide that, too. Senate Democrats will meet today to discuss the same topic.

Connecticut residents will be best served if debate over such a critical issue is conducted in public by the elected officials in whose hands the governor's fate resides.

The theory behind a closed party caucus is that everybody will be heard. If the news media are present, the theory goes, some members will not say what they really want to say. In effect, secrecy is used as a security blanket to protect politicians who don't want their constituents to know what they're thinking.

Of course, the final decision -- in this case, whether to hold an inquiry that could lead to impeachment -- will be made public.

Closed caucuses may make sense in rare instances for partisan political purposes, but they don't serve the public interest -- especially when the subject is as grave as impeachment of the top officer of the state.

People will want to know what thinking went into a decision to hold or not hold an inquiry. They will want to know the position taken and arguments made by their own representative and senator. This is an issue about public trust in government. The more secrecy, the less trust.